That is a different question than what I responded to. People are free to obey or not as they see fit, I would even go so far as to say that there are orders worth defying.
But disobeying lawful orders come with consequences. If after doing them anyway, you are left questioning why you got the response you got, the easy answer is to follow the order.
From the article “Federal officers released gas on the crowd after some people threw things, walked inside a new perimeter fence and aimed fireworks toward the building.”
Nothing here at all folks, move along!
The main point being, that federal agents are usually responding, not preempting.
Any reason why they didn’t arrest the vandals?
What vandals? I thought they were all peaceful protestors.
No? First of all, I didn’t say that 95% of the people have “more of a right” than the 5%. And nowhere did I say “police should do nothing” Again, please don’t attribute positions to me that you’ve made up, and that I haven’t taken. I said:
I don’t know what you imagine those words mean, but they have nothing to do with the rights of those who are causing the ruckus.
I’m not even sure what you’re arguing with me about. I took a pretty reasonable position based on some long-standing American beliefs. You’re asking me to “revisit” and defend myself without presenting any engagement with what I posted.
You haven’t even stated if you agree or disagree with my position, nor is it clear that you even understand the relatively straight forward sentences I’ve written.
The few who actually engage in violence are the ones deserving of action yet the police do nothing to them. The vast majority who are peaceful are the ones the police punish. Care to explain?
What we’re seeing is people disobeying lawful orders that they see as worth defying. They are not naive in asking why they are being treated with such disproportionate brutality for exercising their right to protest in defiance of attempts to limit those rights.
This is a battle of wills and I do not see how escalation of violence on the part of the authorities is going to accomplish the alleged goals of “law and order”.
If we go by that principle, all legitimate protest can be prevented if anybody around at the same time misbehaves.
‘I don’t know who in this crowd threw that water bottle so we’re going to tear gas everybody’ is a terrible way to attempt to deal with the situation.
Ah, so you are on team collective punishment.
Eonwe sayeth " And that means as much as it may pain you to watch it on the news from the comfort of your home, the 95% of people exercising their right to protest freely is at its core more important and more American than punishing the 5% of people who are doing what you believe is “destroying the city” (so, how long until these folks raze Portland to the ground? Or are you maybe engaging in hyperbole to justify your emotional response?)."
Now I am no Harvard grad but that sure sounds like 95% is “at its core more important” than 5% …Hell you even say it’s more American.
I mean , shit how can I argue against that!
I do disagree that 99% of America has more of a right to burn my business to the ground than I do to keep it free from burning.
It’s pretty simple. It is not a comparison of rights between the 95% and the 5%, it is a question of priorities as to whether rights are more important than you getting the visceral satisfaction of “justice”.
And if allowing 95% to exercise their constitutional rights means that your are delayed in seeing the 5% punished for their petty vandalism, then that is a fair trade off.
You are wanting the 95% punished in order to make sure that you get to see the 5% punished immediately.
I also disagree with the proportions, it is more like 99.9% and .1%.
What you are advocating for is to punish the innocent group in order to punish the “guilty” individual. That is not an American value. Or at least, it wasn’t.
Only if they truly cannot distinguish or find it a safe obstacle to overcome.
You want to know what I would find horrific, if the police waded into the protestors to go apprehend some perpetrators only to be hit or worse and then have them open up, firing real bullets, responding to the aggression.
I find the tear gas, in an attempt to peacefully disperse a crowd or firing rubber bullets (I can’t say for certain that the rubber bullets hit the intended targets since most police forces don’t have range qualifications worth a shit) a fairly reasonable response.
Allowing non peaceful rioters to hide within your ranks makes you guilty by association. How many do you think they have ratted out?
Ah, guilt by association now?
You are ticking off all the checkboxes.
It may be a battle of wills but one side has tear gas and riot gear, the other side, not so much so they would be best served by staying clear of tossing, throwing, shooting or trying to get past barricades etc
You must have forgotten to send in a couple of proof-of-purchase seals. They’re sticky about that.
That’s quite missing the point. Clearly one side is able and willing to use force and violence to overwhelm the other. Clearly that same side has the legal authority to use such force. The point is, does it look like it’s making things better or worse? At some point, the might makes right becomes a losing strategy. Especially when it turns peaceful protests into violent confrontations that continue to grow and escalate.
I think the point that is missing but being tossed about is that the federal agents are, currently, only responding to the things the protestors do or don’t do (obeying lawful orders). THEY are not the ones escalating the situation.
Do I think it’s right? I mean I honestly don’t know I am not there, but I did find it incredibly dumb that the mayor allowed CHAZ to happen in the first place and did nothing? Maybe in the hopes that it would help? Did it help or did it spiral out of control? From the reporting (I haven’t followed it all that closely) I had seen, it was allowed to run amuck and eventually increased almost every level of criminal activity until it had to be shut down.
The whole two to tango springs to mind.
Now we get “Might Makes Right.” Another fascist checkbox completed.
context is your friend
It does. But one always leads.
My point of view is that it would behoove the federal authorities to understand that the limits of their power in this situation. While they can overwhelm and intimidate a certain percentage and size of the protesters, that ability is not without limits and in trying to be overly aggressive in instituting “law and order” they are crossing lines that cannot be uncrossed. Soon, and with sufficient provocation, they will be overwhelmed with crowds larger and angrier than they can control with tier gas. More will be hurt and killed on both sides of the growing conflict. It is in their own interest, to de-escalate the conflict from a position of relative strength. Over-reaction, as we’ve seen too date, is not serving the goal of establishing law and order.